Federal judge blocks funding for embryonic stem-cell research

posted at 7:40 pm on August 23, 2010 by Allahpundit

Here’s the opinion, which is mercifully short. In a nutshell: Every year as part of the budget, Congress passes something called the Dickey-Wicker amendment that blocks federal funds for research in which a human embryo is destroyed. When Obama took office, he lifted Bush’s famous executive order from 2001 limiting money for embryonic stem-cell research and told NIH to create new guidelines that would comply with Dickey-Wicker while also expanding funding. What NIH came up with were rules that said money can’t go to research in which embryos are destroyed but can go to research on stem-cell lines derived from killed embryos. In other words, no federal funding for step one in the process, the killing of the embryo, but federal funding for the rest of the process is okay. The question for the court: Does that policy violate Dickey-Wicker? If an embryo was destroyed some time ago and its stem-cell line is still being replicated, is it okay to give money to scientists researching that line or does that constitute “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed”?

The answer: Yep, it violates Dickey-Wicker. When Congress banned funding for “research,” it didn’t mean step two is okay but not step one.

Federal law explicitly forbids use of taxpayer dollars to destroy a human embryo – and culling stem cells from an embryo does destroy the embryo. However, once created, these batches of stem cells, or lines, can reproduce indefinitely in lab dishes.

The Obama administration expanded the number of stem cell lines created with private money that federally funded scientists could research, up from the 21 that President George W. Bush had allowed to 75 so far. To qualify, the NIH insisted on evidence that the woman or couple who donated the original embryo did so voluntarily and were told of other options, such as donating to another infertile woman.

Lamberth concluded that those filing the lawsuit have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success in arguing that the new government guidelines violate the intent of the law about federal funding of embryo destruction.

The money bit from the opinion:

The language of the statute does not support defendants’ alternative definition of research as “a piece of research.” (Def.’s Opp’n [22] at 31 (citing RANDOM HOUSE DICT. (2009).) Indeed, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment does not contain any language to support such a limited definition of research. Rather, the language of the statute reflects the unambiguous intent of Congress to enact a broad prohibition of funding research in which a human embryo is destroyed. This prohibition encompasses all “research in which” an embryo is destroyed, not just the “piece of research” in which the embryo is destroyed. Had Congress intended to limit the Dickey- Wicker to only those discrete acts that result in the destruction of an embryo, like the derivation of ESCs, or to research on the embryo itself, Congress could have written the statute that way. Congress, however, has not written the statute that way, and this Court is bound to apply the law as it is written. Accordingly, this Court must “give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress” to prohibit federal funding of research in which a human embryo is destroyed.

The result: It’s Congress’s move now. They can either clarify Dickey-Wicker to okay funding for research on stem-cell lines derived from killed embryos, or The One and NIH can put their heads together to try to draft more clever language that will comply with the statute. Given the likelihood of a much redder Congress next year, they’d better hurry up either way. One thing I don’t understand, though: It sounds like the court’s decision would have found even Bush’s policy in violation of Dickey-Wicker. Bush didn’t cut off all funding for ESC research, remember, just for research on embryonic stem cells created after the date of his executive order. Weren’t the stem-cell lines already in existence on that date also based on killed embryos and therefore in violation of the statute?

Lefty socialists decrying the radical activism of this federal judge who not one week ago praised the “courage and conviction” of the Judge Walker who put millions of Californians on trial over the faulty and fallacious position on a man and a man or woman and woman coexisting as a legitimate institution in 3….2…1. boomstick

One thing I don’t understand, though: It sounds like the court’s decision would have found even Bush’s policy in violation of Dickey-Wicker.

Yes, that was my first thought as well. You’re correct. Bush’s policy was a compromise with the left, not a far-right position by any stretch. The judge ruled that the law is to the right of that compromise.

He’s really going to be grouchy when he no longer has Congress in a few months. It’s going to be a very interesting situation…especially considering how weak they are politically compared to Slick Willy in the same situation.

And the fact that, to date, embryonic stem cell research has yielded nothing in the way of viable treatments or cures, makes me wonder why they bother with a clearly failed line of research. Stem cell wonders are being done with adult and umbilical cord stem cells and I think the funding should focus there.

And the fact that, to date, embryonic stem cell research has yielded nothing in the way of viable treatments or cures, makes me wonder why they bother with a clearly failed line of research. Stem cell wonders are being done with adult and umbilical cord stem cells and I think the funding should focus there.

englishqueen01 on August 23, 2010 at 7:49 PM

Exactly. Regardless of existing law, the fruitlessness of this “science”, combined with the moral and ethical concerns of destroying human life in the name of allegedly improving it, should be enough to end Federal funding.

And the fact that, to date, embryonic stem cell research has yielded nothing in the way of viable treatments or cures, makes me wonder why they bother with a clearly failed line of research. Stem cell wonders are being done with adult and umbilical cord stem cells and I think the funding should focus there.

englishqueen01 on August 23, 2010 at 7:49 PM

It is no longer about whether a viable use for embryonic stem cells can be found. It’s about the extreme baby killers refusal to take ‘no’ for an answer.

And the fact that, to date, embryonic stem cell research has yielded nothing in the way of viable treatments or cures, makes me wonder why they bother with a clearly failed line of research. Stem cell wonders are being done with adult and umbilical cord stem cells and I think the funding should focus there.

englishqueen01 on August 23, 2010 at 7:49 PM

You know why, englishqueen–because it furthers their Leftist agenda of pushing abortion and denigrating human life and the fact that life begins at conception.
Oh, the state as Big Brother/Nanny/Nurse in Chief.

Bush didn’t cut off all funding for ESC research, remember, just for research on embryonic stem cells created after the date of his executive order. Weren’t the stem-cell lines already in existence on that date also based on killed embryos and therefore in violation of the statute?

No need to kill babies. Adult stem cells and those from umbilical cords are licit, plentiful, less hazardous and do not render the US public complicit to murder. Hooray for a sane decision (for a change).

One thing I don’t understand, though: It sounds like the court’s decision would have found even Bush’s policy in violation of Dickey-Wicker. Bush didn’t cut off all funding for ESC research, remember, just for research on embryonic stem cells created after the date of his executive order. Weren’t the stem-cell lines already in existence on that date also based on killed embryos and therefore in violation of the statute?

I’m a little shaky on the time line here, but I believe Dickey-Wicker came after Bush’s executive order. So Bush compromised and drew a line to allow ESC lines that had already destroyed embryos, but said, basically, “No more. From here on out, no funding on ESC that destroys human embryos.” But Obama basically wanted to re-draw the line, and I think anyone can see that continually redrawing that line amounts to never drawing a line at all.

And the fact that, to date, embryonic stem cell research has yielded nothing in the way of viable treatments or cures, makes me wonder why they bother with a clearly failed line of research. Stem cell wonders are being done with adult and umbilical cord stem cells and I think the funding should focus there.

englishqueen01 on August 23, 2010 at 7:49 PM

Yup, which is why taxpayer funding is needed. No private concern would invest in such a dead end (no pun intended).

I’m a little shaky on the time line here, but I believe Dickey-Wicker came after Bush’s executive order.

tom on August 23, 2010 at 8:40 PM

Not according to the court’s opinion:

C. Regulatory BackgroundIn 1996, Congress enacted the Balanced Budget Downpayment Act, Pub. L. No. 104-99,
§ 128, 110 Stat. 26, 34 (1996). The Balanced Budget Downpayment Act contained a rider,known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which prohibited the use of federal funds for “(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human
embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death
greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under” applicable federal regulations.

Bush’s policy statement establishing the restriction was issued in 2001, and formalized by executive order in 2007, again, according to the opinion.

They can either clarify Dickey-Wicker to okay funding for research on stem-cell lines derived from killed embryos or The One and NIH can put their heads together to try to draft more clever language that will comply with the statute.

Aw Piffle! A lowly JUDGE says “No” to federal funding of ESCR????? Big whooping deal!
Those silly judges! What a bunch of cards! Ha ha, why, I remember once a federal judge told the gub’ment that the six month ban on drilling for oil in the Gulf was illegal! Why, that silly judge was so misguided, the Imam-in-Chief told him to pound sand, and just reinstituted the ban. Um, I think this happened a couple of times, so obviously, anything a judge says can just be trumped by BHO…
It is written.

Bit of a correction, Bush’s original EO was the first time any Federals funds were authorized for ESC research. Bush didn’t restrict ESC funding, he expanded it. While the conditions in his EO were a very reasonable compromise, I think subsequent events demonstrate that it was a Bad Idea to have given ESC any federal funding at all.

Especially since, as several poster pointed out, Adult Stem Cell research is where all the progress has been made; ASC doesn’t have any of the moral issues that ESC entails; and several researchers have reported creating pluripotent stem cells from ASC, which eliminates even the theoretical argument for continuing ESC.

If should be notes that ASC has no problem with private funding, private investors have deserted ESC because it has failed to produce results.

I don’t care who you are – or what your position on when life begins is … you have to acknowledge that your opinion on life is no more valid than the next guy’s.

Even our President has said he doesn’t know when life begins.

HondaV65 on August 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM

When a new life begins is not a matter of opinion, but of scientific fact. Impartial textbooks for medical students, including my 1987 copy of “The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology,” make it clear (e.g., the following is from TDH:COE, page one):

“Human development is a continuous process that begins when an ovum from a female is fertilized by a sperm from a male…A zygote is the beginning of a new human being.”

Again, that textbook was written for medical students, not seminary students.

Here’s a shorter way to put it: Anyone who has ever bought a condom knows when life begins.

Each of us began life as an embryo that looked just like the ones who are being killed. We had our own DNA and grew through the perfectly natural stages that all human beings go through. Once our parents’ egg and sperm met, all it took was time and nourishment to make us what we are today.

However, embryos don’t look like us; they can’t scream, fight back or run away — and so millions, perhaps billions of them are dying so that we and the descendants we want can perhaps live better lives (although all of the advances and treatments have come through non-embryonic stem cells). But it is unethical to kill one human being without his/her consent to benefit another.

“Hey, these Jews are just going to be gassed anyway, so let Dr. Mengele experiment on them.”